Read any Cadillac review from the past decade and you’ll get the impression that Cadillac had simply been peddling crap cars from the 1970s up until the early 2000s. I’m not going to deny for a second that the 1980s were a terrible decade for the luxury brand and its prestige, but the 1990s marked a turnaround for Cadillac, with a sharply styled model range brimming with fresh technology. No Cadillac better exemplifies the changing fortunes of the General’s flagship range than the 1992 Seville.

Even disregarding what lay underneath, the new Seville was a huge change from its predecessor. Gone was the frumpy, boxy, me-too styling of the 1986-91 Seville, replaced by a rakish look that emphasized its thirteen inches of additional length and two inches of extra width. With a longer hood and shorter deck, its proportions weren’t as inhibited by the constraints of front-wheel-drive packaging, even though the wheelbase only increased by three inches. The blocky interior was replaced by a handsome, more flowing design with real African Zebrano wood accents. The warm, relaxed atmosphere stood in contrast to the stark, Teutonic themes employed by much of the competition without going near crushed-velour, loose-pillow Brougham territory.

The STS continued as a full-fledged model in the Seville line-up, joined by a luxury-oriented standard model, renamed SLS (Seville Luxury Sedan) for 1994. The STS featured a firmer suspension, wider tires on 16-inch wheels, analog gauges and less exterior brightwork. The Seville was also further differentiated from its Eldorado sibling, with the latter riding on a 108-inch wheelbase and the former, a 112-inch. Although the Eldorado was also all-new for 1992, it more closely followed existing Cadillac design cues with its very vertical C-pillar; the Seville, by contrast, was a much more dramatic change. Eldorados listed at $32k, whereas Sevilles were priced in the $35-38k range.

Initial propulsion for the 1992 Seville was the carry over, transversely-mounted 4.9 V8 with 200hp and 275 lb-ft of torque, hooked to the 4T60-E four-speed automatic which was praised for its characteristic smoothness and quick responsive. This was only used a stopgap powertrain, but still managed a two-second improvement in the dash to sixty and was impressive enough to help the new car win Motor Trend’s Car of the Year and land on Car & Driver’s 10Best for 1992. Sales also rocketed up to 44,000 units, almost double the number of units moved in 1991. People were impressed: Cadillac was all too eager to quote critics in their advertisements, including a particularly impressive declaration from Automobile Magazine that the Seville had “the looks and performance to go with excellent handling and road holding… [and] is every bit as good as it looks.” The suspension architecture still featured front MacPherson struts and an independent rear suspension with a transverse leaf spring, but the structure was fifteen percent stiffer than the 1991 Seville’s, and handling was vastly improved.

It was 1993, though, that marked a complete turnaround for the Seville. The Northstar V8 introduced in the 1993 Allanté was also standard in the STS, and for 1994, the SLS as well. This double overhead cam, 32-valve powerhouse saw Seville’s power outputs shoot up to 270hp and 300 lb-ft (SLS) and 295hp, 290 lb-ft (STS); in the case of the STS, a 95 horsepower gain, although only 15 lb-ft more torque. Both had competitive power-to-weight ratios, with each of the STS’s ponies, now routed through the new 4T80-E automatic, propelling 12.9lbs. Also new for the STS was an unequal-length control arm rear suspension.

The STS was good for a 0-60 of around seven seconds – plenty of grunt for the time – and Cadillac engineers did a commendable job of working around the limitations of front-wheel-drive. Torque steer was minimal and Motor Trend’s review noted, “You can flatfoot the megapower Seville off the line with an arrow-straight trajectory.” Traction control was standard on the 1993 STS to help keep things from getting too hairy. A 1995 Car & Driver comparison against European and Japanese rivals praised the Seville’s gutsy performance, spacious and richly-appointed interior and sharp styling. They observed the Caddy had an extremely supple ride and great highway demeanor, but chided it for excessive lean in corners and noticeable understeer. However, they found the STS to be better-rounded than the BMW 540i despite its relative handling deficiencies, pointing out that “Touring” was not just a part of the model name and where the car truly excelled.

The price of entry to Seville was increased with the arrival of the Northstar; by 1994, the SLS listed at $40,900 and the STS, at $44,890. 1995 saw a few hundred dollars added to the STS list price, but it still undercut the Infiniti Q45t ($52,400), Lexus LS400 ($51,200), BMW 540i ($47,950) and Mercedes E420 ($52,500). The new Lincoln Continental, boasting a 4.6 Intech V8 with less power and torque (260hp, 260 lb-ft) was the only rival to undercut the STS, but did so with a blander interior and inferior dynamics. The Europeans were realizing, thanks to tougher competition, that they could no longer charge substantial premiums.

Unlike other GM models, the Seville wasn’t left to stagnate. The 1994 STS featured an available fully-independent, continuously variable, speed-sensitive suspension (CVRSS) with dampers that adjusted to the road surface every 15/100th of a second, as well as speed-sensitive power steering; CVRSS would become standard on the SLS, too, in 1997. 1995 saw both the SLS and STS gain 5 horsepower; the SLS now sat at 275hp, the STS at an even 300hp.

Front-wheel-drive has its limits, and Cadillac would never go higher than 300hp in a front-driver; the final 2003 Seville STS still had 300hp, and later DTS Platinum and Performance models only had 292hp (GM would only top these figures with the V8, 303hp, 320 ft-lb W-Bodies of the mid-2000s). Finally, this generation’s penultimate year saw an extensively revised interior with a more integrated console, as well as rain-sensing wipers and steering wheel audio controls. Even the final year saw worthwhile suspension tweaks, plus the addition of Cadillac’s new StabiliTrak system, 0.9 inches wider front brakes, French stitched leather and some NVH refinements. There was no annual cost-cutting with the Seville; the only negative change was the muting of the sonorous Northstar engine note.

Seville sales hit a high of 46,713 units in 1994, with a low point of 37,239 moved during its sophomore year. Sales consistently hovered in the high 30k, low 40k unit range; a darn sight better than its predecessor, which sat around 20k annual units, and better even than the Bustleback Seville of 1980-85. The Seville even outperformed the similarly-sized Lexus LS in annual sales.

I spotted this 1994-95 Cadillac Seville SLS right in the heart of Midtown Manhattan, and couldn’t stop drooling. Although they were never sold where I grew up, the Sevilles and Eldorados of the 1990s were the first Cadillacs I truly noticed. I’ve grown more fond of the Seville and less so of the Eldorado with time, and I find the Seville (and its familiar-looking 1998-2004 successor) absolutely beautiful to my eyes. These were the first Cadillacs to really cement my Cadillac fascination, and I find it particularly irritating that critics virtually disavow their existence.

The 1992-97 Seville proved GM could take on the Europeans, and be competitive even without following the traditional rear-wheel-drive formula. Perhaps inferior reliability to its Japanese rivals has made critics amnesiac to the Seville’s virtues. Northstar engines may have eaten headgaskets and the CVRSS may have been flaky and complex, but these issues aside, the 92-97 Seville wasn’t just a pretty face. It was a contender.

A good looker,GM tried many times selling Cadillacs in the UK but they’re thin on the ground.I may be wrong on this but I’m pretty sure I’ve seen at least one RHD Seville.There were some serious competitors in the luxury car market from Germany and Japan it did well against them.I don’t think I’d buy one due to disliking large FWD cars and having read so many horror stories about the engine especially head gasket repairs with a bill that looks like a New York telephone number

Yeah, while this model Seville likely wouldn’t have been an out-of-the-park home run, if not for the engine problems, it would have been remembered as one of GM’s better luxury car efforts, a solid triple. As it turned out, at best, it was a base hit single.

It’s a real shame, too, when one considers it was also one of the few Cadillacs that had the potential to be a real winner without any kind of tail-fin styling gimmick.

I always liked the looks of that generation Eldorado and Seville, I think they are the prettiest Cadillacs since the early 70s.

My parents drove Cadillacs from about 1994 on; my very conservative Dad, drove DeVilles until he passed away a few years ago and my more hell-raising Mom had some of the sportier cars like an STS, XLR and right now she has an 09 Corvette but is trading it on a CTS coupe soon.

Anyway, she had a pretty white-on-white, fully loaded 99 or 2000 Eldorado Touring Coupe. Nice car, it had whatever the top HP Northstar was available that year and the rain sensing wipers which I thought were stupid, but, had I been in the market for a car like that, the oversteer was a deal killer for me. FWD may be OK for econobox but not in a big luxury performance coupe or sedan.

When the Northstar version was just out, I got a ride with a client who had a new one. It was a burgundy car with a light beige leather interior, and I was seriously impressed.

I was a thoroughgoing Lincoln homer at the time, but after the V6 Taurusnental, this Seville was like a good stiff slap in the face. I didn’t get to drive it, but I could tell that the Northstar V8 had some serious power and the whole car was very well done. It was the first Cadillac in a long, long time that came across to me as a first class American luxury car.

It is a shame that the Northstar has had its longevity issues. If that engine had the durability that a Cadillac V8 should have had, this would be a genuine keeper of a car. Who knows, I might have been driving one by now.

A timeless design in general, but this example looks very sharp, like new. Great find! In the side profile picture I do think it looks a bit like a stretched, flattened Mercedes but that’s not necessarily a bad qualification. It does show what inspired it.

Great write up William. I agree with you that this Seville is an overlooked bright spot in Cadillac’s history. I’ve liked this car since I was a kid, and still find it to be the most appealing Cadillac to my tastes probably ever.

Of course critics disavow their existence. They don’t fit into the “GM only makes junk” narrative. A really excellent car and something worth buying rather than the ubiquitous Mercedes or BMW. Unfortunately, trendy is trendy, and Cadillac wasn’t. Ask any northeastern or California resident – American brand cars are for those ______ in flyover country.

Pity that the followup STS didn’t fare as well. Seemed like Cadillac put everything into the CTS and forgot about the bigger car.

Leaving Lexus out of the mix, are these any worse than a 90’s Mercedes or BMW? Its not like those are the paragons of cheap, easy to fix, low maintenance cars. Again, the reason you can buy $1200 7 series BMW’s isn’t because they are so cheap and easy to keep running.

These were expensive and complicated cars, surprise! They are going to be expensive and complicated to keep running. If you want a cheap and easy to keep running Cadillac, go with the B-body Brougham.

I would wager that the Northstar’s fundamental and very common issues way exceed any similar issues in MBZ or BMW engines. Yes, they’re all complex, and have poor depreciation, but the Northstar issues are in a class of their own: Deadly Sin class.

CARMINE

Posted April 8, 2014 at 10:55 AM

Though there are people that are able to get long life out of them, so its one of those “your mileage may vary” situations. They were maintenance intensive engines. I would wager that a MB or BMW engine of the same era is still more expensive to fix, plus there are all the other incidentals on the MB/BMW that are killer, like $1000 power seat motors and what not. I would guess that its a wash.

In Europe BMW’s had problems with their camshafts, oil consumption even in the 90s. How many BMW with over 100.000 miles does have their original automatics? Hoy many Mercedeses have their original doors, hoods and trunks and other body panels? None, they have all rusted away…. How Many Audis with dieselengines have new turbo, new camshafts (2,5 tdi), new diesel highpressure pumps, new automatics and new front suspension? about 80% of them over 100-150.000 miles.

Yes these Cadillacs was complicated cars, but they are still cheaper and easyer to keep running than the Europeans, besides they have excellent fuel economy for the time compared to MB and BMWs.

Because you americans are used to the excellent cars of the the 60s, 70s and some from the 80s, with Body on frame, V8, automatics and rear wheel drive, cars who are just excellent i many ways, but when it comes to long time reliability none European or Japanese car can beat them. What European car can beat a Cadillac with a 500 and Th400? or a Cadillac 425? or a Buick 430 or 455? None. An old american Body on frame car will survive even the hardest form of use. They are nearly indistructible if you can change some oil once a year….

Yes, your response was as predictable as a parrot. The simple and painful reality is that the Northstar’s issues are orders of magnitude greater than what you allude to, and there are serious questions as to whether GM ever fully resolved them. Where is the vaunted Northstar now?

Yes, Lexus’ rise was purely based on those wacky and trendy CA airheads, not on any actual facts of their general reliability records. And Lexus’ being consistently at the top of CR’s best manufacturer ratings is just because Lexus bought so much ad space from them. We all know how that rigged game works. Cadillac was cheated out of its rightful place at the top of the rankings, year-in, year-out. Someone should investigate.

Philhawk: Please stop seeing the world in a binary way, or assuming others do. Did I or anyone ever say that Lexus is perfect? Of course not. What defines an automobile maker’s reputation (and the many measures of their reliability record) is the average over time, as well as how the automaker responds to issues.

Based on that reality (not wishful thinking), Lexus has enjoyed superior rankings and ratings. There are always exceptions to any set of statistics.

Philhawk

Posted April 8, 2014 at 10:30 AM

Paul,
Please stop replying with sarcasm and a condescending attitude. I get it, we aren’t pals. You asked for proof, I dropped a link. You put words in my mouth and tried to slap me on the wrist for participating. I don’t see these kinds of comments from you directed at some of the belligerent comments typically sprinkled within the comments of many articles on here. The BS can end or tell me to leave.

Philhawk: the Toytota UA issue is one I spent a lot of time covering at TTAC. There’s a difference between intelligently discussing the issue and saying that the Lexus that “went out of control” in San Diego was cause by tin whiskers. The simple reality of that crash was clearly determined. I don’t have time to blather about all the various theories that have been put to rest a long time ago. End of conversation. Maybe someone else has the time…or interest. Not me.

Syke, I think your statement about North-easterners and Californians is as intolerant as the anti-GM attitude you take issue with.

My GF’s cousin bought a new 2001 DTS and drove it 140K until the Northstar grenaded. Though it did cover some mileage, I think the expectation these days is that an engine should last considerably longer.

I’ve had enough poor experience with new GM vehicles from the ’90s and “00s to preclude me from ever buying them again; it has nothing to do with my being a Californian. If you, or any one else chooses GM, if you like your Solstice, I’m sincerely happy for you.

I am not sure what “grenaded” means, did it explode? Was there a head gasket failure? I agree that the engine should have been good for more than 140,000. I would like to know the cause of the failure if known.

I don’t know exactly what happened, I asked about it, she is elderly and not very car conscious. I heard that the engine had a major failure and that the cost of repairing it was so significant that she got another car instead. My understanding is it needed a new engine.

Fred

Posted April 8, 2014 at 11:42 AM

I think I get the picture. She must have gotten 10 years of use though. Replacing the engine would probably run upwards of $4000 to $5000 perhaps.

ohwonesten

Posted April 8, 2014 at 12:02 PM

It’s true, she got 10 years out of it, she likes to drive on long trips. Did it run out of coolant? I guess I’ll never know. The car had it’s share of fender benders – in parking lots – but these were promptly repaired and the car always looked like new. I’m curious if someone took the chance and put a new engine in it. The DTS was replaced by a gussied up Camry, but she doesn’t like it; I think because it doesn’t have that “presence” that the DTS had. She wants a new car, but I don’t know if a Cadillac is in consideration.

Fred

Posted April 8, 2014 at 12:22 PM

It may have gotten low on oil too. My guess is that no one was keeping an eye on fluids between oil changes.

Gary

Posted April 8, 2014 at 4:07 PM

Considering that the Northstar tends to use oil and that usage tends to increase with mileage — yes, I recognize that’s a design flaw — I would bet that the oil level got too low.

On the other hand, my Seville would flash a Check Oil Level warning on the dash when the oil level was more than a quart low. I’d be surprised if that DeVille didn’t have a similar set up or maybe she just ignored the message.

Fred

Posted April 8, 2014 at 4:31 PM

The check oil level seemed to be a first generation sensor. My 2002 Seville did not seem to have one and it did use some oil (about 1 qt per 2000 miles or so). My SRX V8 used about 1 pint per 12,000 miles.

The styling still holds up on this car. IIRC, it was still priced as Cadillac’s flagship, but as Lexus was starting to shape the luxury market, it was clear that a front driver like this needed to be the second or third tier in the line up. As noted, it is unfortunate that these cars didn’t hold up all that well. But, surprisingly, I still see a lot of ’89 – ’92 DeVilles, so maybe these are still around in proportional numbers.

To do much of anything on the FWD northstar’s the engine has to be removed from the car. Or the radiator needs to be moved. Depends on what is being done. I owned an Aurora with the first gen northstar. Then I had the second gen northstar in a Seville. The third gen northstar in an SRX, which was a very good engine I think.

Cadillac got it right with this model, which wasn’t all that difficult when taking into consideration the monstrosities of the 1980-1985 truncated bustle back design and the 1986-1991 Chevrolet Celebrity styled generations.

Very thorough and good description of a landmark car of the 1990s that has yet to receive its due recognition. I thought that this design was brilliant when I saw it released in 1992, and 20+ years later, I have seriously considered buying a 1992 non-Northstar “elderly owner, low mileage” example of an STS if I find one. It would be a stylish cruiser that still looks great and modern, although it will qualify for antique status within a few years. A first year STS would avoid the complication and problems of the Northstar engine and CVRSS while giving more than adequate power and most of the dynamic qualities.

Cadillac had hopes of making the fourth generation Seville Turing Sedan (STS) into a competitive Sports Sedan (BMW 5 series). The computer controlled suspension was seen as the way to overcome the deficiencies of FWD. However in various car magazine comparison tests, the STS generally came in last or nearly last. It was considered to be a wonderful interstate highway cruiser, but not a great car for twisty mountain roads. There was hope that the stiff body structure introduced on the Aurora would upgrade the 1998 STS to sports sedan status. While it may have helped some, the STS was still running about fifth in comparison tests, behind Audi. AWD might have made some difference. My 2007 SRX handled better than my 2002 SLS however.

I owned a ’94 STS for about four years in the early 2000s and put over 50,000 miles on it. I liked the precise steering, supple and quiet ride, and more than adequate power. The fact that it was FWD wasn’t a factor-it was transparent. While my ’88 Olds Touring Sedan downshifted and wheezed it’s way in third climbing the mountains between Cheyenne and Laramie, the STS held steady at 85 mph (137 kph) on cruise and never downshifted. No engine or starter problems, but it did eat a tranny and an a/c compressor. By the time it hit 10 years it was time to go. It was replaced by an ’04 Bonneville that my son has driven for the past 10 years and has well over 200,000 miles on it, all trouble-free.

I wonder if the one to buy would be one of the early-production 4.9L ones…avoid the Northstart gremlins and have a really nice, albeit slower car. My father in law had a 94 Eldo that a friend of his still owns, and I had a 98 Deville for several years. Both were Northstar powered, and neither had any engine problems, but neither accumulated over 100,000 miles in our care either. The Seville style has aged well.

I think a big problem with the first gen northstar is that the head gaskets can leak. While the engine can be run for a short distance after the water pump fails, I think the head gaskets then are quite likely to fail sooner rather than later. If this problem is not fixed quickly, the coolant leaks will destroy the aluminum to the point of making engine repair impossible. My Aurora water pump started leaking and I took it in telling them it needed repair. They checked it out and fixed it. Repair of the water pump was easy. My second and third northstars never had water pump failures while I owned them. I would say the second generation northstar (after model year 2000) is probably more trouble free than the first. The RWD northstar is probably the best, but the 92-97 Seville is the best looking car, with the nicer interior.

I owned a ninety four STS which was my dream car. I put well over one hundred and thirty thousand miles over ten years. Unfortunately it went through three starters and suffered from excessive oil leaks as well as several other mechanical maladies at the end of it’s stay with me. Even at the end it could still haul ass. And it was still so beautiful. I might take a chance on one with the four point nine. Then again maybe not. I also had owned a seventy seven Coupe de Ville my previous dream Caddy. I owned that car during the best time of my life. It was a great car. I would surely like a redo.

The restyled later models didn’t look as good, and I think that caused Cadillac to lose some steam there in the late 90s after starting the decade knocking this one out of the park. They certainly don’t look bad, though.

“Perhaps inferior reliability to its Japanese rivals has made critics amnesiac to the Seville’s virtues. Northstar engines may have eaten headgaskets and the CVRSS may have been flaky and complex, but these issues aside, the 92-97 Seville wasn’t just a pretty face. It was a contender.”

But that pretty much knocks the air out of the rest of the virtues. Those issues aside?! That either makes for very expensive and frustrating trips to the mechanic or puts it out to pasture jacked up on random old junkyard rims to be picked over. If you have to hope and pray that yours is one of the choosen few that don’t die an early death, that takes a lot of the fun out of driving such a machine.

The Northstar chapter of Cadillac is a solid continuation of their craptacular epoch. I agree, this era of Seville is a looker, but its still tied to a very high likelyhood boat anchor of an engine. I love driving the Deville to run errands (I’m in the funeral business), and the Northstar is a big part of what makes it fun. The other big part of the fun is that all the worry is off of me if it decides to blow a headgasket or whatever else. Back to the livery service for them to worry about and $0 out of my pocket.

Its a real sleeper, too many people (obviously ignorant of cars) assume its being driven by some old geezer and couldn’t go more than 45 mph anyway and try to cut you off or get around you from the stoplight. I’ve smoked many a punk kid in his spoilered up econobox or sorority girlies in neo-Beetles who made that mistake. Its guaranteed to put that crap eatin’ grin on your face… 🙂

Still, everytime I about get ginned up to buy one of these Caddies after seeing one that made it to 200K, I see the many that don’t and then reconsider. I love ’em, but I just don’t have *that* much cash to play with on decade old cars.

The first generation northstar was prone to some problems. The second generation less so. With proper care I think both generations probably could avoid complete failure. However, the computer controlled suspension was very expensive to maintain. So the SLS is probably the best one for the longer run. The northstar engine was not nearly the problem that the early 4100 was. My Seville had a solenoid fail in the transmission which required the whole engine/transaxle to be removed. This was a full day a bit to finish. They put the wrong gasket in on reassembly so needed redone. All under warranty fortunately.

An old Mercedes is probably more expensive to maintain than a northstar Cadillac.

If you think keeping one of these one the road is pricey, read the article about the guy that spent like $60,000 keeping a 90’s S-class on the road for a from 2005-2012, he spent enough to actually BUY A NEW E-CLASS. Not all of the Northstars are trouble, they did need more maintenance and upkeep, and you do have to keep on top of the early ones, but Cadillac kept working on improving the engine, by 2000 it was solid.

Agree 100%. While keeping an Cadillac that is 15 years old or older on the road may be more expensive (even if not equipped with the Northstar) than keeping a basic Honda or Chevrolet on the road of that vintage, it’s never going to be as expensive as keeping an old Jaguar, MB, or BMW on the road.

Oh, no doubt about the Benz being more expensive. The issue is, after the depreciation to a point where one starts thinking that might be a fun Sunday cruiser, it looks like more of a money pit headache and makes that Sunday cruise look a lot less fun. I really like the looks of the 2000-2005 era Deville and this era of Seville, but I just don’t think its worth buying. Maybe if I won the lottery or something and I could care less how much it cost to fix, have a whole stable full of Detroit luxo-barges and attempts at Kraut sports-sedans, just drive according to mere looks but barring that, probably not.

Personally, I’ve decided that if I want an old school driver v8 luxo-barge its going to be a Lincoln Town Car. I know, I know, its primitive, has none of the bells and whistles that a Seville would have, the luxury is pretty skin deep, it can’t do autobahn tricks but its fairly cost-effective (as luxury marks go) to keep on the road and it gives me the kind of ride I care to have.

It is no wonder to me why these Caddies meet an inglorious end as donked out ghetto hoopties.

AS opposed to what? I really am not seeing the pregnant whale like 2000 plus Town Cars on the lawn at Pebble Beach. Don’t get me wrong, I like Town Cars too, I would snap up a clean Cartier TC as a driver if the situation presented itself.

There used to be a small segment of luxury car buyers that was gold, old folks, the “last time buyer” as I called them, these were the people that would buy a luxury car as a reward or their well lived lives, and they would keep the car in the garage, maintain it to the T and cherish their car, but those folks are getting fewer and fewer, today, with the luxury car leasing culture that exists today.

The fact is MOST luxury cars of ANY brand are on a downward trajectory after their first owner. It happens to all of them, I’ve seen as many ghetto hooptie LS400’s as I’ve seen Sevilles. There are barely and handful of people that give a damn about keeping a 10-15 year old luxury car on the road.

dominic1955

Posted April 8, 2014 at 11:31 AM

None of the stuff we talk about here is probably on the lawn at Pebble Beach. I doubt anyone with money and who cares what all his country club buddies think about how well everyone is keeping up with the Jones’ would be caught dead in an old luxury car but personally I don’t care. I guess my blue collar is showing.

Its a niche, like anything else. I like a cushy ride and I know plenty of folks for whom the old TC keeps on ticking and racking up the miles with fairly minimal work. I don’t see the same for the Caddies. That’s the sort of thing I care to have, that’s all I’m saying. To each his own.

CARMINE

Posted April 8, 2014 at 11:39 AM

Town Car = B-body Brougham, both were the simplest BOF cars in each of their respective line up, both had the oldest buyers in their respective line ups too, so yeah, these would probably be the easiest to keep on the road, as they were Crown Vic’s and Caprice DELUXES.

It’s not that accurate to compare the TC to a Seville, the Mark VIII and FWD Continental are more like the Seville, i.e more complicated and harder to keep on the road. What I’m trying to point out is that there are just as many equally worthless “donked” or low-rider Town Cars as there are Cadillacs, though for some reason the Cadillac does seem to hold on to that “top o the class of low class” that gives them perennial ghetto appeal.

The actuarial curves for all old luxury cars eventually glides down to 0, with the exception of a handful of outliers.

dominic1955

Posted April 8, 2014 at 12:05 PM

We’re in fundamental agreement. I like the old Caddy Broughams too for the same reason I like TCs. Also, totally agree about the value of used luxury cars.

Sorry if I wasn’t clear, I wasn’t trying to compare the TC to the Seville. I know they are different beasts.

As to the ghetto-mobiles, maybe its just unique to my locale, but I’ve never seen a TC or any Lincoln so treated. I also rarely see TCs at the Buy Here Pay Here places, but plenty of Northstar Caddies of all variety.

CARMINE

Posted April 8, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Since there are always lots off all sorts of luxury cars sold new in Miami, Cadillacs, Lincolns, Mercedes, BMW, Lexus, Jaguar, all of them are common on the streets, so we get the unique position of seeing them in all sorts of run down shape later in their lives.

The place where I work has several Northstar-powered funeral coaches…thankfully no engine gremlins on the S&S Masterpieces so far. Give me a big RWD Fleetwood any time…we still operate one 95-96 Cadillac Brougham Eagle Ultimate that is a better driver than any of the smaller front wheel driven cars. That’s a story for another day, I suppose.

I guess I had it pretty good – I worked at a funeral home for a bit from around 1978-80, and all of the funeral coaches I got to drive were RWD units powered by the Cadillac 425 or 368. I was gone by the time the really slow stuff started coming in.

John Grettenberger’s last triumph. They do seem to have been forgotten, and quickly. I remember these seemed ubiquitous growing up in Connecticut, and they weren’t all owned by older people either, unlike the DeVilles and Fleetwoods. I preferred the Fleetwoods but you could tell it was the DeVilles that were selling to the old Cadillac customers, and that younger customers were snapping up these in greater numbers. Probably the first Cadillacs that sold in any number to 40-50 year olds since the very early 1980s. I was in high school at the time and remember talking to a guy whose mom really wanted an STS. This would be about 1997. That conversation wouldn’t have happened in 1987, or 1991. Really, all of the Cadillacs from ’93-’99 or so were such a step up from the 1985-92 generations in looks, performance, and class (with the exception of the interior trim and loss of the classic design on the Fleetwoods, but everyone knew those were on their way out). It is too bad they were not seen as quite trendy enough to be loved like the European competition; I fail to see how any of that was better then. Post-2000, some of that resurgence seemed lost despite the A&S theme.

I suppose it’s because of the Northstar’s unreliability that they’ve faded not only from memory, but also from the streets, so quickly.

I dunno, I like these Caddys but there’s a reason they’re not fondly as remembered as we’d hope. For one thing, there’s the quality issue as already mentioned, but comparing the new Seville to its predecessor doesn’t really make for a convincing case as to why this car should enjoy a better reputation today.

It may sound simple to say, “oh, you can’t make a large, powerful FWD sedan,” but the truth is that you really can’t. No one looked at cars like the Saab 9000 or Peugeot 605 as valid 5-series competitors, either, and it’s not merely a matter of power, but weight as well. It’s an obvious limitation that shows itself at the low speeds casually enthusiastic drivers may push their cars (like on an exit ramp or suburban roundabout).

While this car may have been a big step forward for Cadillac, other than the automatic transmission, I have a hard time understanding how it was better than any of the contemporary competition, and that is why critics pretend this car doesn’t exist today. While the STS was finally up to date, it wasn’t until the CTS that the had a car which could match the import’s dynamic qualities.

One of my favorite modern American sedan designs. There’s no sense of fwd compromise, no trace of econobox heritage. Just a damn good-looking car, with a nice interior, too.

I would love to own one, but like everyone says, Northstar, Northstar, Northstar…

Is there such thing as a “good” Northstar from this era? With the BMW Nikasil engines, you can often tell if a specific car is in trouble or has escaped the problems. Could you do some kind of check on a low-mile (say 50-70k) Seville and determine if it’s a keeper?

If the engine has been replaced then it should last with proper care. If the previous owner can say that it is not using coolant, then the engine should be good. Should coolant start disappearing either the water pump is failing or bigger problems are developing and need attention. The RWD STS is probably the most reliable. The 2001 -2004 SLS is probably the least expensive to maintain.

If one is really concerned about maintenance costs, does one really want to buy an aging luxury car of any kind, much less one of the luxury sport sedan variety. For those worried about costs, the time to own a FWD Seville is probably over. A new engine runs about $3000 or so if what I found Googling it is right.

These looked great and drove great but the biggest surprise was how nice the interiors were. Like the Broughams from the 80s and 90s I think these would have become more popular as they got older than when they were new except for the fact that the Northstar engine made owning one such a headache and huge expense.

If anything else held the car back it was maybe that it didn’t look like a Cadillac from the rear.

In reality, I don’t think the Northstar was as head gasket failure prone as the Ford 3.8. Of course the cost to fix the Northstar is more because you have to remove the engine to do the work, so the parts aren’t really bad, but the labor is the killer part.

And it’s a TON of labor – one has to drill out 34 holes in the aluminum block, tap the holes, and then install steel thread inserts. And you had better not screw that up or you’ll be looking for a new block.

My dad had one of these cars for 11 years, and thankfully, the worst thing that happened to it was a failed A/C compressor in 100K miles of driving. Otherwise, I loved the car, and it has one of the most awesome V8 exhaust sounds out there IMO.

If you have one of these cars, just like other luxury makes (eg BMW 850), you have to go all-in on it if you want it to be reliable.

On these Northstar-powered cars, your best bet is to drop the subframe and completely rebuild everything (engine, trans, all new engine accessories which can’t be easily reached with engine in the car, hoses, seals, etc etc), put it back in the car, and drive it for another (hopefully) trouble-free 100K+ miles. But that can easily cost $5-8K if you’re paying somebody else to do it (far exceeding the retail value of the car in virtually every case, which is why so many of these now end up in the pick-n-pulls of the world).

If you can find a cream-puff with the 4.9 engine, that would be the safest bet if you don’t want to work on it. You can actually change out the alternator and starter w/o pulling the motor!

Perfectly said Redmondjp about how it’s not just a regular head gasket job on a Northstar. The issue, and $5K+ cost, is well known enough that just about anyone interested in an old Caddy is going to hear about it.

I think the later DTSs put pressure on the Northstar Sevilles too They do the comfortable FWD cruiser thing just as well but have more room, a more masculine look and fins.

In all fairness I think that Cadillac would have liked far less trouble with the Northstar than owners have had. I think the second generation FWD Northstar probably took care of most problems. I do think that Cadillac owners tend to pay too little attention to maintenance though, so who is responsible?

My 2002 SLS road very nicely without the computer control suspension. I don’t know about Lincoln’s although Mom had an 84 Mercury which was probably much softer but mush for handling. What I did not like very much was the nose dragging on the pavement on the least bit of an incline. This was true of other GM FWD big cars.

I agree with the author that these cars marked the beginning of Cadillac’s resurgence.

I’ve liked these cars ever since a 1991 preview article in Car & Driver with the subhead “How to say Standard of the World with a straight face.” A sharp, distinctive, unabashedly American luxury car that could hold its own with the Germans and Japanese. It’s unfortunate that the Northstar had the tendency to blow head gaskets, although I wonder if there’s any documentation that shows the percentage of Northstars to blow. And a redesign in 2000 made that much less likely.

I put 75,000 mostly trouble-free miles on a 2001 Seville and loved the car. The cam sensors went out a couple of times, also a known Northstar issue, but that stopped when they were replaced with OEM parts. By the time I traded the car, it was 13 years old and had 157,000 miles on it, and it needed a quart of oil every 1,500 miles or so. The transmission solenoid was on its way out, and knowing the cost to repair and the value of the car, even one as clean and well-maintained as mine, I bought my CTS.

So, my car wasn’t perfect, but I don’t think my experience was that different from other owners of older luxury cars, regardless of make. I thoroughly enjoyed the power and smoothness of the Northstar, plus the wonderful sound at WOT (the 3.6 in the CTS is smooth and powerful, but doesn’t sound as good at WOT). It struck a nice ride/handling balance, despite copious body lean in hard cornering, something I know well from autocrossing the car. The Seville was beautiful outside, elegant and comfortable inside and served me well for five years.

I’m an active member of an online forum of Cadillac owners, and we’re all aware of the issues these cars have. Some of them are truly problematic. I got a good one.

Nice looking car, but I still say the Gold and Blue Empire plates usually do not make vehicles look better. These are nice looking vehicles despite their quirks, but it is “funny” that leaf springs were still being used on Caddies in 1992. Is the gear shift handle supposed to be cockeyed? Looks good for a NYC vehicle I will say that. I miss the days when cars still had names since the only Caddy with a name these days is the Escalade. There is one of these on jack stands on the side of U.S 30 West of Portland occupying the former gas pump area of a Depression Era gas station and I see a few in junkyards, but I do not recall seeing too many of these on the road.

I had a pearl white STS pull beside me today as I was leaving work…center caps missing from the wheels, grille broken halfway out, wipers parked halfway up the windshield, and the capper…decklid held down by a big red ratcheting cargo strap that looped over the quarter panels and may have looped all the way under the car. The rear seemed to be riding low too…that thing had led a hard life.

My job precludes me from giving specifics, but let me assure you… the Northstar nightmare stories are real. The Seville seemingly had more issues with other components (transmission, for instance) as well. It was common a few years back to see individuals replace the engine ($5500) and transmission ($3500) at the same time. People soon caught on and JUNKED the damn things rather than blowing their cash on these clunkers.
Someone mentioned the Northstar was some “high-maintenance” engine. Um, no, it was created as a LOW-maintenance engine! I come from a GM family and personally LOVE Cadillacs, but the Northstar was as close to a “Deadly Sin” as Mr. Paul said (I like the Cimarron, I’m not anti-GM!) (and I don’t care for the D.S. Series).
These (beautiful) Sevilles are getting to be pretty uncommon. There’s a reason! N*!

You seem to have a good deal of expertise on GM products and I admire and appreciate that.

That having been said I wanted to ask you – what did you make of the later C4 Corvettes (i.e. 1993-96)? A friend of mine still owns a 1995 coupe he bought brand-new and on which he has put an incredible 235k miles on. He says it’s the most reliable GM product he has ever owned. I believe it, and we’ve also both agreed that none of the Northstar Cadillacs were ever as reliable as C4 Vettes.

I’d call it more of a passion than expertise. I’m a chronic (opinionated) realist.
However, I know next to zilch on Corvettes. That’s one GM product I’ve had almost no interest in. I’m into practicality (Buick is beginning to reign supreme in my world).
I will say I’ve heard more good than bad on them though.

I liked this generation of Eldorado, too. Never been in either, but both were clearly more appropriate, more successful, and more serious vehicles than the gens that preceded them. I wasn’t happy to see either the Seville or the Eldo disappear (or their contemporary, the Lincoln Mark VIII, either) from the marketplace.

Caddy that zigs? Hardly. I had a 1997 STS and I can remember a couple times the damn thing nearly killed me. First time was an evasive maneuver that required a medium-speed “zig” (40 mph evasive) and it just plowed straight on. No braking in effect, just front wheels cranked all the way to the right and minimal change in direction. Nearly hit what I was trying to avoid! Second time was driving in slushy conditions. I was doing what any intelligent driver does in a front-wheel-drive car in low traction conditions: it was sliding to the right and I was steering to the left to counteract the slide to keep going in a straight line. That was when the stability control interfered and nearly sent me into the other lane with oncoming traffic. I have no love at all for electronic nannying in modern cars. It usually just causes accidents.

That said, God that thing was beautiful! It was dark green that looked almost black in bright sunlight with a shine on. Had to get rid of it because I couldn’t afford to maintain it properly.

The thing I hate most about the Northstar is that it makes GM fans circle the wagons like a bunch of Audi people and lament how “lazy” owners are unable to follow the always nondescript “proper maintenance” of their finicky, unreliable cars.

I did not say lazy owners. However if one did not keep an eye on fluid levels and take action bad things happened. I think that the dealerships may have been more the problem than the owners, who probably expected their service departments to take care of things.

The production northstars probably had problems that the hand built prototypes did not develop. I know that this engine was sometime in development. I am sure that the problems were unexpected.

My guess is they circle the wagons because lack of proper maintenance is always the excuse of Euro fans for why THEIR cars break down and are hilariously expensive to repair (“ach, but this is a PREMIUM car, you have to follow ze schedule!!”), but if it’s an American car that has even ONE questionable component, then the whole car must just be a POS, as well as everything else from the brand, and you have no taste, no class, and no brains if you own one, etc. etc. etc. Also, the company must have designed it poorly DELIBERATELY to screw over stupid Americans.

The first Lexus LS was near Mercedes S Class quality at near C Class prices. I think it was Automobile who had a long term test that got into a minor fender bender that cost $30 grand to fix. I would call this an expensive issue.

I found a website that indicates the Northstar was a Wards best engine for three years. This website also says that the head gasket problem was fixed by 1995. It does go onto say that there may be a problem with head gaskets failing after 100,000 miles. I replaced my cars with Northstars before reaching 100,000 miles, so I have had no problems. The Aurora did need the valve covers resealed once under warranty.

I was a fan of the 1992-1997 Cadillac Seville. I was not a fan of what was under the hood 1993 forward. Everyone has commented in so many ways here. I thought I would share a video of one with a column shift and digital gauges( I preferred it this way) and the story behind the design:

Ughhh… I’m so late to this and really wish I had seen it the day it ran. I’m a fan of these and think they’re amongst the most interesting American cars of the last 20 or so years. I’ll try to keep this as short as possible, but here goes:

Despite it’s major and expensive problems, I think the Northstar engine was ultimately a winner for Cadillac. Before it debuted, they’d spent many years refining the HT4100 and at it’s absolute best, it was just OK. Never impressive in any respect, and really only adequate for something in a luxury car. They’d also spent the 80s building the worst cars they had ever built and by 1992 the brand was 9/10ths of the way towards becoming a total joke. The luxury car game had been completely turned on its head during the past decade or so and Cadillac needed to find a way to build a car that could go toe-to-toe with the Germans and Japanese in performance and refinement while still retaining a distinctly American quality and not alienating their core buying demographic (nearly dead people). For the moment, they were also married to an inherently flawed FWD architecture that had been a mistake all along.

In retrospect, this was really a make or break car for Cadillac. They might’ve had a few more chances to screw up had the Seville been a dud, but there’s no question that they’d be gone today had they continued doing business as usual. With all that going against them, I think very few people would have imagined the end result would be a car this good.

The Northstar reliability issues can only take away so much of its brilliance for me. It was a massive leap forward in build quality, performance, styling and refinement – and a twincam V8 putting down 300HP to the front wheels was the icing on the cake. Nobody else had that or would ever have that; it was something that really caught your attention. If the Seville had soldiered on with a ho-hum update of the 4.9l V8, it wouldn’t have been half as interesting. Would more of them be on the road today? Yes, probably… but who would care? Only Cadillac nerds and diehards. The Northstar captured the imagination of people well beyond that small circle. That it’s pièce de résistance ultimately bit it in the ass is tragic, but most of them lasted well through the lease period – and as shitty as it sounds, that’s really all they needed.

Where GM deserves scorn is not fixing the issues and letting the Northstar die on the vine. They certainly had plenty of time to get it right – and I understand that the later versions were much improved, but that they’d only updated it incrementally through the years tells me they’d lost interest in continuing it’s development long before it was dropped completely. The Seville was a huge step back in the right direction, but the CTS was what really got them back on track. And as much as I love the Cadillacs that have come along since then, I always think they’d be just that much cooler with a newer (reliable) Northstar under the hood to give them a little bit more “Cadillac-ness”.

Very nice article on a car that will never get the respect it deserves!

I agree that for Cadillac to be a player in the world market of luxury cars, an overhead cam engine was needed. Cadillac could have made do with the 4.9 or could have developed a larger pushrod engine. The Corvette engine did not get an aluminum block until 1997 and I think that the Northstar engine probably helped GM to avoid repeating the same problems.

I have been trying to find more information on the Northstar problems. There is little information regarding the extent of the problem, but the first generation is worse than the second. The problem is NOT the head gasket, but rather is the aluminum block and the threads that hold the head on. After the engine has overheated (due to a water pump failure), the aluminum threads in the block weaken. Then after a time, some of the bolts holding the head on loosen, with coolant leaks. This engine went into production in 1993, so problems would not appear until the engines reach about 60 to 80 thousand miles, so probably problems start becoming a concern around 1997. One would think that GM would have tested production engines and found issues like this sooner?

The Northstar was redesigned for 2000, with longer head bolts, but still used a fine thread. This reduced the failure rate by 10 fold according to one website, but even so the failures were still too high. The Corvette block used a courser thread, which was then used on the Northstars. After this change the rate of failures decreased to nearly zero. I think probably all RWD Northstars have the course threads with long bolts and as such are solid engines. My experience with my RWD SRX V8 was good with low oil consumption, less than a quart between 12,000 mile oil changes (with 20-30% oil life remaining).

The midsize cars (the LaCrosse Super for example) got a 5.3 liter V8 with more than 300 hp (barely) and 320 ft-lb of torque or so. So while the Cadillacs did get high horsepower/torque to the FWD, GM did have some other cars with more later on.

I think that the Northstar was important to Cadillac, the problems with it have made used Northstar Cadillacs very iffy cars to buy. So, in the short run, the Northstar made Cadillac more competitive, but between the shortcomings of the FWD and the Northstar’s reliability, Cadillac needed RWD to really be taken seriously in the sport sedan market. Probably the owners with FWD Cadillacs are the old time Cadillac owners, rather than the younger buyers that Cadillac was hoping to attact. Even so Cadillac does not want to lose these customers.

In so far as whether the Northstar is a deadly sin, I think a greater sin would have been committed if they had stuck with a cast iron pushrod engine.